tv [untitled] December 7, 2010 10:00pm-10:30pm PST
heads of households, families, that need to access muni. i think it is important to have that constituency on that body. i would like to suggest her as one of the two nominees. commissioner campos: we have a recommendation from david chu, seconded, to appoint dia selby. can we take that without objection? i thought she did an impressive job. i want to thank her for her interest. colleagues, commissioner dufty? commissioner dufty: jonathan goldberg. i would like to move his nomination. i think there is a value of having young people in the process. i would like to move his name forward. commissioner campos: we have a motion from commissioner dufty. second?
i will second. colleagues? can we take that without objection? thank you. we will be recommending the appointment of dia selby and jonathan goldberg. again, we want to thank all the applicants for their interest and look forward to hearing more from the committee. madam clerk, please call item nine. >> item 9. update on the status of childcare facilities at the transbay transit center. this is an information item. commissioner campos: we have emilo cruz. commissioner dufty? commissioner dufty: i requested this because of my concern about the importance of planning for child care as part of the transbay transit center.
the imperative that we plan in advance. the worst examples that uc of child care and job development programs as when they are shoehorned into an existing facility. commissioners know -- i know some of you are supportive of the measures i have before the board today which allows these things to take place, allowing opportunities for the city to develop a child care. in my opinion, i feel the transbay joint powers authority has been lackluster in their forthcoming about these plans, and most recently, have expressed to me, they're concerned that they cannot identify where the funds come from. ironically, we met over the past month trying to identify a funding gap for the central subway project. i would challenge mr. cruz, whom i respect greatly, to show me a
project that has ever had complete funding. there always be to be -- they're always needs to be things altogether. it is essential we get commitments forthcoming, given the amount of prop k financing that we are putting toward this project. child care will not be an afterthought. we could have as many as four facilities. the tjpa staff are going to be aggressive in partner with the city and other potential funding sources to develop child-care. there is no reason we cannot be ambitious and look at groups like the san francisco international airport, that has 24-hour child care. certainly, with high-speed rail,
we are going to see operations at all hours of the day. i appreciate that other colleagues have met with me, i appreciate mr. cruz being here, i would like to be proven wrong in my view of what has taken place here. i did want to knowledge the city-wide child coordinator. she meets with all of us on a regular basis and it is frustrating to me when we have to do battle over something that should be part and parcel of everything the city does. commissioner campos: we will now hear from the program manager, mr. cruz. >> program manager for the consultant team of the tjpa. i wanted to present the status of where things are and perhaps open up a dialogue. i do have a power point presentation. i do not have printed copies.
i can get them to you today. what i wanted to do was first -- commissioner campos: if you could also make sure you have copies available to any member of the public that requests it. >> absolutely. the funding plan for the overall tjpa project is a bit complicated because the project does not fall into projects which are new start or traditional funding. we had managed to pull together a lot of different sources. thank you for the $98 million from the san francisco county transportation authority for this project. there is funding sources from the three counties that are participating in the organization. san francisco, san mateo, and alameda county. we have a number of funding sources. the two single largest funding
of the program is a land sales and the error grant. you can see from the overall program, the total cost is $1.58 billion to date. that is the amount of money we have been able to get committed on the project. let me go through it two major funding sources which we received a $40 million grant. that was to complete the construction of the train box, the level of the transit facility. those costs are $728 million, so by no means did the error grant go to pay for the train box, but it was a major track -- contribution to make it a part of phase one. commissioner dufty: when the $400 million was asked, did you know that it was going to go up?
>> we knew it would be seven under $20 million. we had $328 million available, so that was the difference. we were advised that that would be a reasonable amount to ask as part of the application. what it represents for us is the ability to take the $328 million that we had come at the $400 million, and moved the train box into phase one. had we not receive that, we would have put the construction of the train box into phase 2. commissioner dufty: but you are all now? >> yes. the second largest funding source comes from land sales. -- commissioner dufty: but you are whole now?
tjpa recognizes the need for child care facilities and we are working with the city to make these facilities a reality. the land itself we're getting is a land transfer from the state of california. the conditions tied to the land are the primary conditions. one, land transferred to the tjpa or city, which includes the redevelopment agency, must be sold with all the proceeds of that sale going toward the implementation of the project. second condition is a 20% affordability factor put on top of the 15% that already read it exists on any residential development in the zone itself. so all of this land that is developed for residential will have 35% affordability factor on it. commissioner campos: is their right now a planned common intent to include child care facilities, or is that something you are still trying to work out? >> our planned -- i have in here
the parcel to move forward on development. the plan is to incorporate in this issuance for development, but the developers include a child-care facility in all of the designs. then to look what those costs are as a result of its conclusion and find a way to fund that. commissioner dufty -- commissioner campos: commissioner dufty? commissioner dufty: you say that the tjpa has a need for child care. can you show anything that is memorialize to show that? but i am looking for, related to these four sides is an mou between the tjpa and the city. >> we recognize the city's need for child care facilities. there has not been a formal action taken by the tjpa board
on this topic, primarily because of the timing of this issue. we have not moved toward the issuance of development except for parcel e. commissioner dufty: how long have i been talking about child care? >> probably about five months. commissioner dufty: has there been any indication that representatives of the city are asking for stronger action from the tjpa? >> not to my knowledge. commissioner campos: in light of that, what is the actual level of commitment to this issue? it is one thing to make a verbal commitment that you understand -- which in legalese does not have any binding impact, so what is the level of impact if we are still not seeing anything that
memorializes that there will be something? >> we have four parcels that we be put out for development, and a potential fifth that could accommodate top care facilities. that is parcel 6, which will be issued by the redevelopment agency. they have already committed that they will include a requirement that a child care facility be included in the design of the building. so there is a commitment there. one of the requirements from the redevelopment agency is that they have the funding to implement the child care center. with regard to tjpa parcels, there are three parcels, parcel t, 5, and f. what we are interested in doing, when we put them up for sale to a developer, that we will require a child care facility be included in the plan for approval.
now, what we are facing, quite honestly, is the balance of needs -- the land, like the dollar, can only be stretched so far. we have competing needs of the transit center itself because land proceeds have to pay for the transit center, and right now we are barely a full funding. we have a 35% affordability factor on housing. that is also a critical component. we also have demand for parks. as part of the project, we are providing a five-acre park on the roof of the building, a one- acre park, and a new part being proposed at second and howard street. so another potential parcel would be that one at howard, which had never been programmed as a park. that could provide a low-level building that could have a child care facility in it.
it is a parcel that right now has the potential development costs associated with the project, so it would be cost neutral to the p -- tjpa. and it is adjacent to a park, so it would accommodate the outdoor spaces. commissioner campos: commissioner dufty? commissioner dufty: i understand the city wide coordinator has been in discussions with the tjpa for four years. i want to put on the record. she has been in discussion with staff seeking to have some firm commitments, that as we go forward, there will be feasibility, there are plans, because if we do not do it now with state licensing requirements, we will not be able to. i firmly feel there needs to be an mou, an adopted commitment on the part of the tjpa, that this will be meaningfully explored. we have had experience with the
pc building. when it kind -- came time to getting the project done, all the sudden, child-care was out. i say to my colleagues, you will be here longer than i will, but this is something i am concerned about. you cannot have a unique, vibrant community around transbay, certainly not for families, if you do not have child care. currently, only 51% of the family seeking licensed child care are doing so. to date, even in the presentation, you have not said anything that dissuades me that tjpa has been absolutely lackluster. it has not been brought before the board, nothing in writing, nothing adopted. it is just words. i am concerned that these words will not have meaning. >> what i can report and take back to the executive director
is the recommendation that we move something to the board which states where we are at the staff level, which if i can repeat, is a commitment that all the parcels we put up for development put in a requirement that the developer comes forward with a plan that includes a child care facility. once we develop a plan and design that incorporates a child care facility, we will collectively be charged with the task of finding a way to pay for that facility. the tjpa is willing to move toward making it a reality, but quite honestly, it has its own financial capacities as it relates to a program that is currently $4.2 billion, $1.9 billion underfunded. the tjpa is working diligently to find $1.9 billion to make the high-speed rail terminus a reality, to make the redevelopment zone a reality, and at this point, is not able to make financial commitments,
but is certain they able to make planning commitments, design commitments, and working with the city, finding funding to make child care a part of the redevelopment zone. commissioner campos: commissioner avalos? commissioner duftycommissioner . i want to thank commissioner dufty for bringing this item forward. not only for the transit center that we are building, but every place we build commercial office space in san francisco, it should be a requirement across the board that they would provide spaces for workers and their families that can make it possible for them to work. i have talked with many others about this. it makes a lot of sense. i think there needs to be a shift in the mind set of planners, that the cost of the transit center will include child care and we are going to
make it happen the matter what. that is the kind of infrastructure we need to be building for, not just transit, office space, residential housing, but for the city. it makes sense to have these centers built in, and that will make san francisco more livable. i would like the tjpa to go back and consider bringing this to an agenda item on how to make this happen at the tjpa. commissioner campos: i have a question for transportation authority staff. thank you, mr. cruz. i have a lot of respect for you, mr. cruz, and i appreciate the presentation, but i do not think what we heard is sufficient. what we need is not an oral commitment, but we actually need a commitment from the board, from the tjpa board, that says child care facilities will be included in this project, not
that they are considering it, not that they understand the need, not that they are cognizant of the importance of this, but in fact, that it will be included. with that, a question for transportation authority staff. is there a way that we can make prop k funding contingent upon actual deliverable is on this issue? >> in terms of the prop k funding that has not yet been committed to the project -- we have over $10 million committed to phase two, the downtown extension. near-term, we have a commitment of $20 million in regional transportation improvement funds for the state, which we have not yet programmed. in addition, we have been working with tjpa staff to de- obligate some of those things to link these two funds. commissioner campos: so how much
money is left that we have not committed to the project, where we can make that commitment contingent on the liberals on this issue? >> i do not know the exact amount, but if you count the $20 million in rtip funds, prop k, probably about $30 million. we are working with the tjpa to close the funding gap on phase two. commissioner campos: commissioner dufty? commissioner dufty: i would certainly appreciate the plans and programs committee of'comm' commitment to this. in earlier meetings around the subject, what's that said to me was they were concerned about having a child care facilities to close to the transbay center because they thought it would be a site for possible terrorist attack. this infuriated me.
my child spent a year and half in the basement of city hall. certainly, this building would be an opportunistic site for anyone wanting to be in our city. it portrayed to me a level of awareness of the needs of the people who live in this city, and how fundamentally important it is that people have a place for their child to be while they live and work. having proximity to your child is one of the things that makes you feel safe. i just want to say i am really disappointed in the presentation here, disappointed that after four years of discussion at the staff level, that there has been so little to show for it, in terms of written commitments relating to the tjpa authority members about concerns for having child care.
can i know the commitment of the members of this committee and the board of supervisors, and i am relying on you to make sure that this is carried forward properly. commissioner campos: commissioner david chiu? commissioner chiu: i want to thank commissioner dufty for bringing this to our conversation. i certainly echo what all of our colleagues have said about the importance of this. i think, one of the framing issues here, is that child care is often viewed as an expense as part of development. what is important to note, in san francisco right now, the child-care industry is a $200 million industry that has created over 400,000 jobs. if we think about it as an form part of the economy, not just for the jobs it provides, but how it leverages other jobs by allowing parents the opportunity to bring their children summer and work in an immediate vicinity, and that in itself,
has tremendous multipliers. thinking of it as a complementary economic strategy, and instead of an either or project, is an important aspect that policymakers often forget. commissioner campos: colleagues, my suggestion would be that we bring this item back to the plans and programs committee, and that we put it as an action item so that we make it very clear that the funding that this project will receive from this agency will be contingent upon actual deliverable on this issue. i would ask staff to work with my office, the office of commissioner dufty to make that happen as soon as possible. again, i want to thank commissioner dufty for his leadership on this and shedding light on this issue. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed.
colleagues, any other thoughts on this item? we can now move to item six. thank you. >> recommend appropriation of $2,955,000 in prop k funds, with conditions, for environmental analysis and preliminary engineering for the van ness avenue bus rapid transit (brt) project, subject to the attached cash flow distribution schedule, and amendment of the brt/transit preferential streets/muni metro network 5-year prioritization program, with a commitment to appropriate $574,000 in fiscal year 2010/11 prop k funds to complete this phase of work. this is an action item. >> good morning. senior transportation planning manager. our current phase, which is the environmental analysis and product development going from 12% to 34% product development. the van ness brt is the signature project in the prop k expenditure plan. it had been identified in the countywide transportation plan
of 2004 as part of our strategy for expanding rapid transit in san francisco. it is a highly rated fta small starts project. we have been rated high for cost effectiveness. it is also a regional party for the small start program. we are part of mt a's vision for rapid transit as expressed through their transit affected this project. it is an exciting project for the muni system. where we are right now is the environmental analysis and product development phase. 12%, 30% engineering. we have made a lot of progress. we have completed all the technical studies for the environmental analysis. we have completed 12% project engineering. this is what we are calling phase one in this request. we are moving on to stage two.
stage two comprises additional environmental work and the initiation of 30% project development. i will go a little bit more into the scope of this effort in a moment. there is a third phase. the third phase is so designated because it will have a different funding strategy. by the time we reached the stage three, we expect to be able to leverage a small start funds. right now, we are starting product development at risk, but we expect to have the availability of small starts in the next couple fiscal years. this entire phase, the environmental analysis, the 12% to 30% project development, is $8.6 million effort. this is a good cost, at this
point. only 7% of the overall project construction cost, which is less than industry averages. you can see the cost per stage. stage one was the environmental analysis, environmental work. stage two, the current request, will include additional environmental work in response to agency and community input, as well as initiation of 30% engineering. a significant amount of that. stage 3 will complete the 30% engineering. this current request, the $2.9 million, which is most of the cost for stage two, the rest of the cost is subject of a parallel request from mta that is also on your agenda.
the scope of stage two has forecasts a through d. staffing our citizen advisory committee, caltrans product development team. tasks b and c are where the environmental and transportation analysis are done. this is mainly done by persons transportation's group, our contractor for the project. the additional environmental analysis that we need to complete is in response to agency and public comment. through the last year, work on the project, we have added additional scenario tests to respond to stickle the concerns. we have done some engineering, feasibility on these samara
tests, to respond to stickle the concerns. we have doubled our efforts in the caltrans project design exception fact sheet process to respond to caltrans'questions, needs for documentation. the scenario test and we analyzed -- i want to point out -- one of them is an alternative that would reduce the number of left turn pockets along van ness ave to provide more signal time and potentially save time for the brt. this work tasks b and c, and is conducted by parsons transportation group, but also with support from the authority and mta. finally, a task see is the engineering task. we are initiating the engineering design. this is not a new approach to
30% and was originally envisioned for the project. we are excited about it because it will actually be more efficient in the end. we have brought on more capital projects staff from mta. we now have a team of established project managers and engineers who have developed a scope of work, have worked with other city agencies, to identify those i engineering tasks that should start now. -- those engineering tasks that should start now. we are integrating them into the construction team to facilitate this information- sharing, a partnership in engineering, which will have more efficient outcomes and will advance the initiation, the 30% engineering activities. finally, we also want to